Predicting Benefit From Evolocumab Therapy in Patients With Atherosclerotic Disease Using a Genetic Risk Score: Results From the FOURIER Trial.

BACKGROUND: The ability of a genetic risk score to predict risk in established cardiovascular disease and identify individuals who derive greater benefit from PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibition has not been established. METHODS: We studied 14 298 patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease from the FOURIER trial (Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Researh With PCSK9 Inhibition in Subjects With Elevated Risk). A 27-single-nucleotide polymorphism genetic risk score defined low (quintile 1), intermediate (quintiles 2-4), and high (quintile 5) genetic risk. Patients were also categorized by major atherosclerotic risk factors including diabetes mellitus, hypertension, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ≥100 mg/dl, and smoking; multiple (≥2) risk factors was considered high clinical risk. Outcomes consisted of major coronary events (coronary heart death, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization) and major vascular events (major coronary events and ischemic stroke). Median follow-up was 2.3 years. RESULTS: After we adjusted for clinical factors, the genetic risk score was associated with risk for both major vascular events (Ptrend=0.005) and major coronary events (Ptrend<0.0001). Individuals with intermediate and high genetic risk scores had 1.23- and 1.65-fold increased hazard for major coronary events, respectively. Elevated genetic risk was additive to major atherosclerotic risk factors and identified patients more likely to benefit from evolocumab. There was no benefit for major vascular events in patients without multiple clinical risk factors or high genetic risk (hazard ratio [HR], 1.02; absolute risk reduction [ARR], -0.2%, P=0.86). In contrast, there was a 13% relative risk reduction (HR, 0.87 [0.75-0.998], P=0.047) and a 1.4% ARR in patients with multiple clinical risk factors but without high genetic risk and a 31% relative risk reduction (HR, 0.69 [0.55-0.86], P=0.0012), and 4.0% ARR in patients with high genetic risk, irrespective of clinical risk (Ptrend for HR=0.017, ARR Ptrend=0.004). Patients with high genetic risk who received evolocumab had event rates similar to patients with a low burden of both genetic and clinical risk. CONCLUSION: Patients without multiple clinical risk factors or high genetic risk had a low event rate and did not appear to derive benefit from evolocumab over 2.3 years. Conversely, patients with multiple clinical risk factors but without high genetic risk had intermediate risk and intermediate risk reduction. Patients with high genetic risk, regardless of clinical risk, had a high event rate and derived the greatest relative and absolute benefit from evolocumab, which mitigated this risk.

Antihypertensive drugs and risk of cancer: network meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of 324,168 participants from randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: The risk of cancer from antihypertensive drugs has been much debated, with a recent analysis showing increased risk with angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs). We assessed the association between antihypertensive drugs and cancer risk in a comprehensive analysis of data from randomised clinical trials. METHODS: We undertook traditional direct comparison meta-analyses, multiple comparisons (network) meta-analyses, and trial sequential analyses. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1950, to August, 2010, for randomised clinical trials of antihypertensive therapy (ARBs, angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors [ACEi], ß blockers, calcium-channel blockers [CCBs], or diuretics) with follow-up of at least 1 year. Our primary outcomes were cancer and cancer-related deaths. FINDINGS: We identified 70 randomised controlled trials (148 comparator groups) with 324,168 participants. In the network meta-analysis (fixed-effect model), we recorded no difference in the risk of cancer with ARBs (proportion with cancer 2·04%; odds ratio 1·01, 95% CI 0·93-1·09), ACEi (2·03%; 1·00, 0·92-1·09), ß blockers (1·97%; 0·97, 0·88-1·07), CCBs (2·11%; 1·05, 0·96-1·13), diuretics (2·02%; 1·00, 0·90-1·11), or other controls (1·95%, 0·97, 0·74-1·24) versus placebo (2·02%). There was an increased risk with the combination of ACEi plus ARBs (2·30%, 1·14, 1·02-1·28); however, this risk was not apparent in the random-effects model (odds ratio 1·15, 95% CI 0·92-1·38). No differences were detected in cancer-related mortality for ARBs (death rate 1·33%; odds ratio 1·00, 95% CI 0·87-1·15), ACEi (1·25%; 0·95, 0·81-1·10), ß blockers (1·23%; 0·93, 0·80-1·08), CCBs (1·27%; 0·96, 0·82-1·11), diuretics (1·30%; 0·98, 0·84-1·13), other controls (1·43%; 1·08, 0·78-1·46), and ACEi plus ARBs (1·45%; 1·10, 0·90-1·32). In direct comparison meta-analyses, similar results were recorded for all antihypertensive classes, except for an increased risk of cancer with ACEi and ARB combination (OR 1·14, 95% CI 1·04-1·24; p=0·004) and with CCBs (1·06, 1·01-1·12; p=0·02). However, we noted no significant differences in cancer-related mortality. On the basis of trial sequential analysis, our results suggest no evidence of even a 5-10% relative risk (RR) increase of cancer and cancer-related deaths with any individual class of antihypertensive drugs studied. However, for the ACEi and ARB combination, the cumulative Z curve crossed the trial sequential monitoring boundary, suggesting firm evidence for at least a 10% RR increase in cancer risk. INTERPRETATION: Our analysis refutes a 5·0-10·0% relative increase in the risk of cancer or cancer-related death with the use of ARBs, ACEi, ß blockers, diuretics, and CCBs. However, increased risk of cancer with the combination of ACEi and ARBs cannot be ruled out.

Ethnicity and left ventricular diastolic function in hypertension an ASCOT (Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial) substudy.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated whether diastolic function differs between hypertensive patients of African-Caribbean or white European origin and established whether differences could be explained by confounding variables. BACKGROUND: African Caribbeans are known to have a higher prevalence of heart failure than white Europeans but it is unclear whether this is a result of known risk factors. Tissue Doppler technology now allows accurate quantification of diastolic function, which is recognized as an important factor in the development of heart failure. METHODS: Participants from a single center participating in the ASCOT (Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial), composed of patients with hypertension but no evidence of heart failure, were studied. Left ventricular structure and function were measured in 509 patients using conventional and tissue Doppler echocardiography. Diastolic function was assessed using the tissue Doppler early diastolic velocity E' (averaged from 3 left ventricular segments) and the ratio of this and the transmitral early filling velocity E (E/E'). RESULTS: In African-Caribbean patients, mean E' was significantly lower (7.7 cm/s vs. 8.6 cm/s, p = 0.003) and mean E/E' was significantly higher (8.85 vs. 7.93, p = 0.003). After adjustment for confounding variables-age, gender, systolic blood pressure, pulse pressure, cholesterol, smoking, ejection fraction, left ventricular mass index, and diabetes mellitus-the effect of African-Caribbean ethnicity on diastolic function remained highly significant (E': 7.52 vs. 8.51; p < 0.001; E/E': 8.89 vs. 7.93; p = 0.003; African Caribbeans vs. white Europeans for both comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: Diastolic function is significantly worse in hypertensive patients of African-Caribbean origin than in white Europeans. This difference in diastolic performance is not due to known confounding variables.

Effect of spironolactone on blood pressure in subjects with resistant hypertension.

Spironolactone is recommended as fourth-line therapy for essential hypertension despite few supporting data for this indication. We evaluated the effect among 1411 participants in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Blood Pressure Lowering Arm who received spironolactone mainly as a fourth-line antihypertensive agent for uncontrolled blood pressure and who had valid BP measurements before and during spironolactone treatment. Among those who received spironolactone, the mean age was 63 years (SD: +/-8 years), 77% were men, and 40% had diabetes. Spironolactone was initiated a median of 3.2 years (interquartile range: 2.0 to 4.4 years) after randomization and added to a mean of 2.9 (SD: +/-0.9) other antihypertensive drugs. The median duration of spironolactone treatment was 1.3 years (interquartile range: 0.6 to 2.6 years). The median dose of spironolactone was 25 mg (interquartile range: 25 to 50 mg) at both the start and end of the observation period. During spironolactone therapy, mean blood pressure fell from 156.9/85.3 mm Hg (SD: +/-18.0/11.5 mm Hg) by 21.9/9.5 mm Hg (95% CI: 20.8 to 23.0/9.0 to 10.1 mm Hg; P<0.001); the BP reduction was largely unaffected by age, sex, smoking, and diabetic status. Spironolactone was generally well tolerated; 6% of participants discontinued the drug because of adverse effects. The most frequent adverse events were gynecomastia or breast discomfort and biochemical abnormalities (principally hyperkaliemia), which were recorded as adverse events in 6% and 2% of participants, respectively. In conclusion, spironolactone effectively lowers blood pressure in patients with hypertension uncontrolled by a mean of approximately 3 other drugs. Although nonrandomized and not placebo controlled, these data support the use of spironolactone in uncontrolled hypertension.